Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Backpack hunters and anglers organization

I like your company and would like to thank you for being pro hunting, and to my knowledge you havent campaigned to end it. More than some others can say.

Thanks

Yes we do a lot for hunting and conservation in general. For the record, I personally support the GYE grizzly hunt, but the reality is it is such a small number, it probably doesn't matter much, so I almost don't consider it having any skin in the game. I know some of the more extreme fringe groups will file lawsuits, because they see the area as more of an open zoo and don't really understand living with large predators. I think those bears, need to learn the hunters are not a dinner bell. However, I also personally, am not in favor of the reduction of monuments, though I do believe Obama should have used the Bishop recommendation a few years before which was close in size to what it initially was. I personally, spend a fair amount of time in the Escalante area in the spring just having fun, so that one is personal. Really, I'm sort of done talking politics, and would rather talk hunting/ fishing / gear

Happy Hunting

Amen to that. I'm in the market for a 12-man tipi sized shelter. I'm familiar with Kifaru tipis but haven't used a Seekoutside.

What are the differences in size, construction, etc?

You can come to our GJ Facility and see any of them setup or there is a place in Evergreen I believe that retails a few.

Short comparison is (and I haven't seen one of the others in year)
Seek Outside is Round vs Oval similar sq footage
We offer a dedicated vent that can close , a sod skirt, a storm flap on zippers , guy out points on all seams, stove port is different
Our Apex is a Dyneema interior / Waterproof Exterior
Functional Feature differences - Our guy outs allow flexi pitch to pitch 8 man size if needed , we have more venting options,
I think our liners fit pretty tight and very well so you don't loose much space
If you want screens ours are sewn in
We offer a seam sealing service at an additional charge
Fabrics probably similar but I guess they are berry compliant , we have never tried to certify , we have probably a higher waterproof rating and more reliable coating is my guess
We have a lot of interior / nest options if desired.
We have a pretty stringent QA process , thus we have some blem sales from time to time .. we are pretty picky
We generally have less stretch in our seams due to our construction


I'm sure others may chime in.

A 12 person, with a Big Mama Ti stove would be a pretty sweet rig for cold camps


Thanks

Ah, KT is a BHA-firm corporate sponsor employee, at least. Sure, Kifaru sells the hiking hunter good gear, and needs as much land as possible upon which to market the experience, and the gear. Got it. Vested interest. Kinda like Randy likes "roadless areas" because he can still film there without a permit. No mercenary interest at all. Of course, I admit mne. I like logging.

As for BHA's position on G bear, Yvon opposes it, Yvon bankrolls BHA, what else do you need to know.

One other thing I got a laugh out of, I didn't know this, but BHA has a
BHA Launches Hike to Hunt Challenge
Posted by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers | July 19, 2017

and the sponsors are

BHA corporate partners Kimber, Kifaru, First Lite, onXmaps, Schnee’s, Vortex Opticsand YETI are showing their support for backcountry lands by providing an array of prizes for participants.


Yeti? Really? Kimber? Really? Are these guys really on the same page?

Apparently the sponsors of said event are complete idiots. I’m sure they run their succcessful businesses the same way. I find the statement that you support logging a bit telling. Apparently we need more roads into national forests. With any luck, they can all be like the Medicine Bow NF with a road every half mile or so. Then, again with more ‘luck’, the state guide association will convince the state legislature that non-residents will get hopelessly lost in all wilderness areas (re no roads) and they’ll shoot all the grizzlys upon sighting such a terrifying beast.

Think I’ll pass and hang with BHA.

Dave, if your "serious" writing gig doesn't pan out, I think you have real potential as a comedian, that last post was some of the funniest stuff I've read in a long time. Especially the line above, associating Kevin with Kifaru is hilarious. And entirely consistent with the overall quality and accuracy of your research and opinions.




Dave, that's what's commonly known as an association fallacy. But I prefer to call it a red herring because you've got more red herrings than a Chinese trawler. Yvon supports preservation of existing wilderness, and he supports BHA which is an advocate for preservation of existing wilderness. Yvon understands the intrinsic value of wilderness and roadless areas, and uses those areas. Outside of that, Yvon is free to support whatever else he wants to support with or without the blessing of BHA. Why would BHA take a position on a state game management issue anyway, it's not what they're about.

And tell me Dave, what does "bankroll" mean? If it means "contribute to," then I also bankroll BHA as do many others here. For the simple reason that the best hunting and fishing is in roadless areas and we'd like to keep what we've got. It really is as simple as that. Most BHA members have no financial interest in the backcountry Dave, for most of us it's personal.

Everything is not a nefarious plot driven by mercenary interests as you seem to think it is Dave. Some people really do value wilderness but your distorted worldview prevents you from seeing that and it's a shame. I know the owner of Kifaru, I've shared a few camps with him in the backcountry both hunting and fishing. He had the passion for backcountry hunting and fishing before he started his company and that led him to start making the gear that didn't exist for hunters back then. I can tell you with 100% certainty that if his company hadn't taken off and he'd done something else, he'd still be hunting and fishing in the backcountry and still be supporting BHA. I don't know Kevin as well but I've met him and read his posts here. I know we've traveled and hunted some of the same areas and I can say the same about him--he'd support BHA regardless. And the same for Randy Newberg, it's obvious from his videos and TV shows that he loves what he's doing and really does value wilderness and the mission of BHA. All three of these guys know that the best hunting and fishing is in the backcountry and they want to preserve it for future generations, that's a tradition that dates back to Teddy Roosevelt and others.

It really is as simple as that Dave, and it's a real shame that your distorted, cynical worldview blinds you to the fact that people can support the preservation of roadless backcountry for something other than mercenary interests.

PS, edited to add: If you bothered to do even minimal research on Randy Newberg, you'd know that he doesn't make his living doing hunting videos. You apparently know nothing about the man but feel entitled to cast aspersions and question his motives.

If Randy = Randy Newberg, I bet you can't prove he's ever filmed without a proper permit. "Roadless areas" would still require permits and not all regions/districts will grant film permits for them. IIRC, specifically Region 1 of the USFS for designated wilderness areas.

Good post Smoke, using facts and reason in a debate should be the standard in the Backpacking forum. The lack of personal attacks and acrimony has long been the best feature of this forum.


mike r

Wilderness advocates are not friends of the American hunter. Or getting more Americans accessing public land.

Go to any pro wilderness group meet and greet. Show them all of your hunting pics, talk firearms and trophy hunting.

Discuss the merits of using a game cart in designated wilderness. Make sure you lift your pinky while drinking.

It will be immediately apparent just how accepting of your lifestyle they are.

That would depend on whether those wilderness advocates are hunters or not, obviously. I believe it's already been pointed out here that BHA came out in support of hunter access in national refuges so your premise is a non-starter.

I'm a wilderness advocate. I've donated lots of money and thousands of hours to promote hunting and habitat conservation through organizations like RMEF and by helping over a thousand new hunters get their licenses by teaching our hunter education course.

That took over a thousand hours of my own time, all as a volunteer, promoting the sport of hunting. I'd turn your post around and say, people who spout nonsense and falsehoods are not friends of the American hunter.

Blanket statements like yours and Skinner's are seldom true but don't let that stop you.

There are lots of wilderness advocates here who are (obviously) pro-hunting. It's the backpack hunting forum after all. Without wilderness and roadless areas there would be no backpack hunting so like someone said earlier, it's amazing to see someone come on the backpack hunting forum and be against the concept of backcountry.

I have to disagree, but I have several friends that work for places that advocate wilderness like The Wilderness Society that are avid hunters. I will agree the fringe part of some groups are not a friend, but that goes for both the right and left.

Perhaps it is far different in Montana, but I know in my neck of the woods, that the vast majority of Elk killed in the units near me are in wilderness (excluding private ranches). There just is not a lot of action outside of that with the exception of an occasional elk that someone gets lucky with off a 4WD road or the first morning of rifle season. Outside of that if you want real opportunity, better get the backpack together and go in the wilderness or at least to the fringes of wilderness.

I never said that Randy makes his living off hunting, or even if he makes a profit. But what he does is a business, and as a business, he's got some tax support if he loses money, and he obviously does what he does because he likes to do it rather than just hunt for himself.

Nor will I argue about what elk do. It's amazing to see them zoom off to cover after the first shots, or jump fence to haystack paradise. They are amazingly skittish anyway, all year.

I only bought a couple tags in Colorado, and only actually hunted one time, it was like third rifle, three days or five days, I can't remember which. But I was shocked and stunned at the herd of orange. Only saw one decent fiver, when I cut over and above him, there was another guy closer and tracking, so I just had to bail and that was it, back to town. Nice walk, kinda boring for the most part, I gave my fellow hunter his dibs, dropped over the ridge away from him and gone. I'm good with that, hope he ate well. But it was kind of a shock to hunt in those constraints after growing up with five weeks of opportunity and decent, regular success.

The only other time I bothered was when I had permission around Trinidad on private ground. Bought the tag, second rifle, had to work instead..Had been there prairie dogging a number of times and knew where the good animals were, so that was a pretty major disappointment. Colorado could do better with fewer tags at a higher price for a longer season, but they're just the way they are with all those short, stupid special seasons and everyone in a nutty rush.

The bottom line for me on BHA is, the push is to close off lands from all uses of any kind (except hiking and horsey) just so the hunting is good a few days, or weeks of the year, and nothing else matters. I understand the passion, as I felt it for a while. But because of that passion, the BHA crowd is just as selfish as the wilderness people.
My position is, rational seasonal closures and access management, integrated with forestry over the long run, would result in more productive habitat, better hunting for everyone, and a broader economy both locally and regionally. Let wilderness be wilderness, but enough is enough.

This is the first rational post I've seen from you on this subject. I also think I understand your perspective, may not agree with all of it but we can have a conversation vs innuendo and smoke screens.

First, about Colorado. Elk hunting in Colorado is about one of two things - hunt on private or get off the road. I don't have access on private and am not paying for a guided hunt so my only option is to get off the road. "Get off the road" means off any easy access. I know guys that hunt '3-4-5 miles' off the road and still come up empty. Walking 2.75-3.75-4.75 miles back a road/trail then a short walk off the access point doesn't count. Elk have figured that out. Off the road means bushwacking, hiking to yonder ridge, etc. To do that you need a dearth of roads. Roads mean access, access means hunters, hunters mean no elk. Its that simple to me.

"Integrated forestry" I'm not sure what that means. Forest management I could buy into in limited amounts. Forest fires are fueled by undergrowth. Forest fires also clear large openings in forest. Fire creates habitat. In the end, I'll default to Mother Nature to create habitat - unless I'm not understanding the concept of integrated forestry. As an aside, I'm not against forestry, just don't think we need as much as we have/do. I work in the coal mine industry so am no stranger to resource extraction. And for the record, I'm not fond of some of the issues mining and logging create. At least in the east, logging is likely the least regulated industry around and creates large scale sediment issues.

'Access for everyone' is a subjective thing. Wilderness/no roads is access for everyone - for everyone who cares to walk or take a horse. When I see 'access for everyone', that means to me, everyone with an ATV. I despise ATVs in hunting country - except to retrieve animals or for the handicapped. Outside of that, get your ass off the iron pony and walk. Probably for this reason alone, I'm against more roads/trails into forests. I've seen enough ATV abuse to last my lifetime. I could tell stories for the rest of the day but suffice to say I'm not an ATV fan. And I don't buy the whole "gated road" concept. Another series of stories. ATV guys have abused that privilege to the point where I won't even entertain the thought.

'Broader economy' sounds like business language. I'd dare say the economies of the west are fueled by recreation dollars, not resource extraction industries. I'm sympathetic to business cases but not in this context. Growing trees in the US is not rocket science and is not a scarce or limited resource.

If your last sentence is truly your motivation for wanting more access, I can live with that and agree with some of it in principle. If we were the decision makers, we could reach a compromise that meets in the middle. As to some of the supporters of BHA, they may have ulterior motives including some that are counter to your way of life (logging as I understand). I would stand with you against them if I thought you weren't simply being a lumber whore at all costs.

Gotta go catch a few trouts.

I don’t quite understand this idea that if there are roads there are no elk. Do the elk magically disappear? I’ve hunted with family in Utah for elk and there are plenty of two track roads all over the mountains and those guys kill elk every year that they have tags. The elk might move around more but the idea that the only way to kill an elk is to backpack 5 miles into steep country and carry it out on your back is a bit false. Unless of course if that’s the only legal option.

If you're referring to my post, open roads with elk hasn't been my experience - unless for some reason people aren't using them. The context was Colorado but I've found the same thing in Wyoming. I've never hunted Utah but suspect they don't have the same amount of pressure as Colorado and Wyoming, and likely Montana.

Winters, I'm going to paste yours here and reply accordingly, in italic, or "Dave": I don';t know how to run the graf functions here..:

This is the first rational post I've seen from you on this subject. I also think I understand your perspective, may not agree with all of it but we can have a conversation vs innuendo and smoke screens.

First, about Colorado. Elk hunting in Colorado is about one of two things - hunt on private or get off the road. I don't have access on private and am not paying for a guided hunt so my only option is to get off the road. "Get off the road" means off any easy access. I know guys that hunt '3-4-5 miles' off the road and still come up empty. Walking 2.75-3.75-4.75 miles back a road/trail then a short walk off the access point doesn't count. Elk have figured that out. Off the road means bushwacking, hiking to yonder ridge, etc. To do that you need a dearth of roads. Roads mean access, access means hunters, hunters mean no elk. Its that simple to me.

[i][/i] You are only in Colorado for short times every year and that's your biggest constraint toward understanding. Seriously. I'll also say it's too bad you don't have access on private, scored by actually building relationships with private landowners. I got the "goods" at Trinidad because I publicly supported the idea of coalbed methane production on their ranch and that of their neighbors, the thing there was they held the mineral rights, it wasn't the "split estate" thing. But aside from the "business," I could also speak "cow" and all that, so we became actual friends over time, not just incidental allies. The wells went in, the pumps still run, and the elk are still there.

"Integrated forestry" I'm not sure what that means. Forest management I could buy into in limited amounts. Forest fires are fueled by undergrowth. Forest fires also clear large openings in forest. Fire creates habitat. In the end, I'll default to Mother Nature to create habitat - unless I'm not understanding the concept of integrated forestry. As an aside, I'm not against forestry, just don't think we need as much as we have/do. I work in the coal mine industry so am no stranger to resource extraction. And for the record, I'm not fond of some of the issues mining and logging create. At least in the east, logging is likely the least regulated industry around and creates large scale sediment issues.

Dave: Least regulated? Really? That may happen in Tennessee, failure to control sediment and all that, but out West, every state and the Feds have pretty strict regulations on soils and water management. Plus most loggers have at least one or two certified persons on the crews who keep the rest in line. Never mind that loggers are outdoorsmen, too. You have to be, you're sixty miles from town, no help close, in all weather, you better be an outdoorsman or you'll be dead soon. As for mining, are you white collar or in the hole? That matters perspective wise.
INTEGRATED forestry, which you SHOULD understand, means to log, AND burn and consider the next forest. Combining fire with mechanized harvest is typical for the tribes because that's how Indians managed their woods before the white guys showed up. And it is amazingly effective, I have been on "closed" rezzes with the tribal foresters and it's good stuff. It's not done elsewhere because the court system blocks everything (thank you, Greens, like those who fund BHA).
Also, and this is important, the tribes can't print money. They get some subsidy, but comparatively little. So -- they have to do things that make economic sense, and that's critical. Sometimes, they just have to "let it go and hope for the best," that's a direct quote from a tribal forester in Washington state regarding the impacts of a terrible wildfire. Other times, they can capture value, scoring JOBS (which some Indians really like, trust me), revenue for the tribe, and other cash to buy seedlings and jump-start the next forest, the one they want to see, not seven, but NEXT generation from now.
So the lesson learned from the tribes, and my attitude is, public lands policies need to be economically rational and generate value, not literally burn cash that could be better used elsewhere -- or left in the hands of the people who generated that cash in the first place.

'Access for everyone' is a subjective thing. Wilderness/no roads is access for everyone - for everyone who cares to walk or take a horse. When I see 'access for everyone', that means to me, everyone with an ATV. I despise ATVs in hunting country - except to retrieve animals or for the handicapped. Outside of that, get your ass off the iron pony and walk. Probably for this reason alone, I'm against more roads/trails into forests. I've seen enough ATV abuse to last my lifetime. I could tell stories for the rest of the day but suffice to say I'm not an ATV fan. And I don't buy the whole "gated road" concept. Another series of stories. ATV guys have abused that privilege to the point where I won't even entertain the thought.

Dave: Yeah, it's subjective. To wilderness people, multiple use means that more than one person can hug an old-growth tree at the same time. Or hike down a trail at the same time. And your attitude about the iron pony says a lot. I'll agree during hunting season, partly, especially for regulated retrieval and handicap access, but not the rest of the year. And when you talk about ATV people and "abuse," that's also not kosher. Yes there are idiots, I hate them, I scream and yell at them all the time. But think about guns and shooting areas -- extend your "ATV" attitude and there shouldn't be any place to shoot on public lands, either, because someone MIGHT be stupid. Punish the guilty, but don't use them as a surrogate or excuse to completely wreck something you might not like, but others love. That's complete Fudd thinking, like the gun controllers using school freaks to get at guns in general.

'Broader economy' sounds like business language. I'd dare say the economies of the west are fueled by recreation dollars, not resource extraction industries. I'm sympathetic to business cases but not in this context. Growing trees in the US is not rocket science and is not a scarce or limited resource.

Dave: You are WRONG about recreation as a driver. Maybe in the places you go, but tourism and recreation doesn't carry the economy through the entire year, not even close. Tourism is always "extra" except in a few tourist traps, like Jackson and Aspen -- not places I want to be with stratospheric costs and terrible pay, totally have and have-not places.

If your last sentence is truly your motivation for wanting more access, I can live with that and agree with some of it in principle. If we were the decision makers, we could reach a compromise that meets in the middle. As to some of the supporters of BHA, they may have ulterior motives including some that are counter to your way of life (logging as I understand). I would stand with you against them if I thought you weren't simply being a lumber whore at all costs.

Dave: Lumber whore? Try timber beast, in that I've seen what happens to a landscape (that was managed for 10,000 years by Indians for human benefit before Columbus) when the false ideolgy of "nature" takes over. In forested, mountainous landscapes, especially in the dry West, you either log it, or burn it preemptively, or it finally gets tired of waiting and burns from ridge to ridge, taking the good stuff as well as the bad. THEN you get your sedimentation, oh, baby. It ain't rocket science, you're right about that -- its sleazy, slimy politics.

Gotta go catch a few trouts.

A couple of clarifying things. First thanks for the post, it was mostly civil. We may still not agree on everything.

Second, I've only lived in Tennessee for the past 10 years, I'm from PA. I've worked in the coal fields across all of Appalachia. "Logging regulation" is a joke in the east. Logging is the preceding activity on all mine projects. I've seen it, turned them in, and have zero empathy for rape and pillage logging. Conducted 'correctly' different story - I just haven't seen it very often in the east.

Third, I have and ride ATVs - responsibly. I get my deer off our 1000 acre lease (timber land conducted responsibly BTW) most years by ATV. I'm not against responsible ATV usage. Here's the rub - who enforces the idiots? I've had ATVs drive through the woods past my deer stand on public land here in TN several times. I've had guys drive by me on gated forest roads in Wyoming and Colorado numerous times. I've had bad ATV experiences in every state I've hunted on public or private. Its to the point where I'd prefer to outlaw all ATVs on public land. I'll walk rather than deal with the idiots. I'll also have less company in the woods/mountains if everyone had to walk which is a win for all - except the slobs which I don't care about.

In a rather Capt Obvious sort of way, I think the main issue is that you see wilderness initiatives as a threat to your livelihood. People on this thread see wilderness/forest access as a threat to our favorite past time and/or way of life. I'm on the side of reducing access to wilderness areas and creating more where possible simply because I spend 50-60-70 days or parts of days a year on public land recreating of some sort. If you count my job, its alot higher than that. Without public land, I'm not entirely sure what I'd be doing both professionally and privately.

I am also not advocating for making all public lands restricted access. Without public access we wouldn't have the national park system, WMU/GMU/WMA, etc. I get it. But to say we need to increase access, at least on existing wilderness areas, I'm not in. In my mind, we don't need more roads through our NF - we have enough already. We don't need a road every square mile.

In addition, a difference exists between access and experiencing an area. Experiencing an area is pretty limited when your peering through a window of your car or off the back of an ATV. If people want to experience a place, walk/hike into it, spend time in it. You don't need a road for that; all you need is public access. You also don't need to hike 5 miles over hill and dale.

Or take a horse. I've seen trails in the Smokys severely damaged by horses but can live with the trade-off as long as excesses don't occur.

Bottom line - if you'd approach the whole wilderness/BHA thing from a threat to your livelihood viewpoint, most people here would be sympathetic. Innuendo, smoke and mirrors, only raises suspicion and questions motive.

Threat to my living? Not directly, but it's certainly a threat to anything but a tourism economy. And you should know that BHA is an outgrowth of an attempt to coopt the NRA on conservation issues because the NRA is a lot more pragmatic on conservation than environmentalists. Greens don't like that at all and spend millions on the subject, including to BHA.

I said nothing about increasing access on EXISTING WILDERNESS AREAS. I grew up next to the Bob Marshall, and when my Dad was into it, we hunted there all the time. I appreciated that, let it be what it is. But after a while, it seemed that Greens figured everything that hadn't had a road, but did have trails, should be wilderness too. And then, places that had had roads, that were closed, or not "engineered," oh THAT qualifies for wilderness. There's a reason Montana hasn't designated any new wilderness areas since 1988. basically because we're far beyond the 1964 original intent.
Then there was the "roadless initiative" to get around the fact that wilderness became politically toxic. I don't suppose you know the law, the various clauses that impose no deadline on Congress to act. So, the Clinton Administration did a withdrawal, then a "rule" that turned 58 million acres into "de-facto" wilderness administratively, regardless of forest plans, suitability, future changes. And the Bush administration was so wrapped around the axle about 9/11, they neglected domestic affairs. So -- that roadless rule was the biggest designation of wilderness since Carter and the post Watergate Democrats hosed Alaska in 1980.

As for slagging logging prior to mining -- what did you expect? Even a good forest has a lot of waste that can't be merched. Then, the point is to clear the land, and it's going to be dug up anyway. Tell me what you see in select-harvest units where the long-term forest is the goal. Not clearing ground for a mine.
What is more important in my view is, what's the RECLAMATION gonna look like. Mine clearing isn't forestry, not really. You should see some of the mines in NW Colorado and all the animals. I wish they would profile the dirt more naturally, but the reclaimed areas are green, good eating for some really impressive rackage (which you can't get at unless you're buddies with the miner's union).

Finally, there's that 50 days a year you get. I'm lucky if I get two days in a row. Always been that way. But that means I don't get to "be" anywhere for long especially if there's someplace else I want to be before I have to get to work.